IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-31379 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONALD JOSEPH REAUX,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 01-CR-71-1-R -------------------- November 13, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald J. Reaux appeals from his convictions, following

a jury trial, of bank robbery and use of a firearm during and in

relation to a crime of violence, in violation of

(a) and 924(c)(1).

Reaux contends that the district court erred by denying,

without a hearing, his motion to exclude expert testimony regarding

fingerprint evidence, under the standard of Daubert v. Merrill-Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

(1993). Under FED. R. EVID. 702,

“the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony

. . . is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 01-31379 -2-

589. Daubert “offered an illustrative, but not an exhaustive, list

of factors that district courts may use in evaluating the

reliability of expert testimony.” Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2002) (citing Daubert,

).

The Daubert inquiry is “flexible” and does not “constitute a

‘definitive checklist or test.’” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,

(1999). This court reviews the admission of expert

evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Norris,

(5th Cir. 2000).

In Reaux’s case, the district court relied on United

States v. Havvard,

(7th Cir. 2001), a Seventh Circuit

case in which that court held that the district court had complied

with Daubert in admitting fingerprint evidence. The district court

noted several factors cited in Havvard in support of admitting

fingerprint evidence under Daubert’s standard. No abuse of

discretion is evident. In any event, any error with respect to the

admission of the fingerprint evidence is harmless, because, even

without such evidence, the case against Reaux was overwhelming.

See United States v. Wise,

(5th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied,

(2001); United States v. Skillern,

(5th Cir. 1991); FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a).

The convictions are AFFIRMED.